Comments on: Kalispell Hires Airport Engineer
By FightOrFlight on 02-02-10
Now these airport haters are really grasping at straws. They propose a rule for no commercial flights.
Are they demented enough that their request is to stop Air France from landing there with a Boeing 777, or do they want to stop the Forest Service or FWP from conducting wolf tracking or snow surveys from City AIrport?
Or do they want Life Flights have to go to Glacier and add twenty minutes to the ER for patients?
Or do they want to keep flights that ferry rafters to and from Shafer Meadows from operating out of City Airport?
Perhaps they would rather have the Civil AIr Patrol or Alert to keep away, too since they are commercial pilot operations.
Keep it up Quiet Skies, you are getting more egg on your face everytime you break wind.
There is nothing wrong with the airport the proposed improvements won’t fix. N O T H I N G!
Maybe they should re-negotiate your lease for your house, too. I bet if we looked deep in your closet we can find some dirt to try to invent a cause to negate your life as you know it, too.
Really now: How many airplanes went over your house this weekend?
Three at the most?
Pathetic cause.
Give us a break.
By Kokanee on 02-03-10
Fight I am not really affected by this decision, I have no stake in the airport, I am not affected by air traffic but my question is why would you be so adamant about the airport staying where it is?. Dismissing peoples complaints as though they are beneath you and their opinions are based in ignorance does not make you look any better.
By FightOrFlight on 02-03-10
@kok I don’t care how I look, I care…. because they ARE being subjectively ignorant. Their complaints are based on problems that don’t exist. Planes are not buzzing low over town in huge noisy numbers. They are not crashing into schools, day cares or old folks homes.
The numbers are not staggering for the use of the airport either.
People fly in more in the summer than in the winter. So what. Its an airport and they all moved there knowing it was there.
If there are pilots flying to low or close to these folks houses, have them arrested. You don’t close down main street because logging trucks use jake brakes and cause dust and break windows with thrown rocks. You enforce the laws to prevent that. You don’t blow away the infrastructure and start over to pacify those in detraction mode.
Two or three complaining folks are stirring up the pot, period.
And IF these folk had a legitimate reason to gripe and the problems were so bad that the airport had to be moved…. those troubles would only move to someone else’s neighborhood. Moving the airport is a poor solution and unconscionable.
The airport exists, like the fire stations and ambulance barns. When they get used, people will see and hear commotion and noise. That does not mean it all has to move because a couple of folks start petition drive to quiet down the neighborhood.
By Kokanee on 02-03-10
Like I said earlier mostly curious. What are your objections to it being moved,would the newer facilities come with all the latest greatest upgrades . If someone offered to build me a new house with all the newest most modern contrivances I might ponder it long enough to think how best to move my stuff. Millions die by accidents all over the world everyday that is a mute point to me. Is there some sentimental reason to leave it where it is, not being a smart @$$
By kalispelling bee on 02-03-10
FightorFlight, are you really comparing the airport to public emergency services and transportation? It’s a poor analogy. The airport is an amenity. Quite a difference. While I really don’t have a dog in this fight, I think you lose support when your argument because shrill and insulting.
By FightOrFlight on 02-03-10
Here we go. Your opinion about infrastructures and amenities is why I took a grenade in SE Asia. Say anything you want. But if you try and defend wrong facts with wrong definitions supported only by your opinion, I am in your face, my friend.
The airport is infrastructure. An amenity is drinking fountains or hot tubs. Check your Funk and Wagnalls.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infrastructure
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amenity
So why do you try to repurpose the meanings?
If you have no dog and not in to take sides, then who cares if you don’t like messenger? I’m not anyone you want to meet anyway and I don’t want to meet you.
The on topic point is: the airport is there and needs updating; not a referendum on all the subliminal opinions presented making claims for facts to support that are irrelevant to the real issue.
Here are some facts, read first, then apply to the issues.
http://www.kalispellcityairport.com/index.cfm?inc=page&page=68
By Kokanee on 02-03-10
Typical jarhead you are supposed to take your head out of the helmet before placing helmet on grenade LMAO.
For fear of being shutdown I will not deviate from the subject at hand but if I were to deviate, the placement for your dictionary would be where your head is but in order to read it perhaps you should install a nice round window in your navel as to let in a copious amount of light to read by.
This is a board of discussion and I would still like to know why you are so adamant about the airport staying where it is. Your assessment over my command of the english language is not needed nor necessary for a discussion to ensue.
If you wish to teach I am sure the local schools could use some volunteer help. You pompous blowhard
By FightOrFlight on 02-03-10
My goodness, your fuse is really wet and you are really frustrated.
The reason why it should stay where it is is:
TA DA….. drum roll…... that option is not on the table in the Kalispell plan. Moving it is just another meaningless sidebar to cause trouble at city hall by a few opinionated folks who think the plan by the city needs to be changed.
So the OPINION is to start at square one.
The FACTS are to follow the plan.
Which leader do you want to take there? The one with the opinion or the one with the facts? City Hall or Quiet Skies?
Rhetoric or infrastructure improvement is all you get.
You shot yourself in the foot, cowboy.
By Kokanee on 02-03-10
At one time I read on here that maybe it was an option, if I am wrong about that so be it. Re read my posts it is in the form of a question not trying to stir up any hornets, just clarification is all I needed not a didactic lecture.
By FightOrFlight on 02-03-10
Touche Mr Lecturer
By mitch on 02-03-10
I have a question. I live very near the airport and have no problems with it being there. I’m not afraid, the noise doesn’t bother me, I have no complaints. Therefore, I haven’t paid much attention to this blog, or the articles or anything else because I have nothing to comment on, bad or good. However, someone mentioned to me recently that if the airport was enlarged, the people would find it easier to travel out, and in, as I’ve heard often of people driving to Spokane or Seattle and catching their flights from there, as it’s just too darn expensive to fly out of Kalispell directly to these larger cities? So, question is, if the airport is extended will it then be possible for the shuttles to fly from here and beyond to connect instead of costing a fortune and therefore making more sense to drive? Did this not all start as it was recommended by the FAA that for safely reason the runway needed to be extended?
By FightOrFlight on 02-03-10
Mitch
http://www.kalispellcityairport.com/index.cfm?inc=page&page=68
other links there have facts about what is really going on.
They just want a safer airport for the general aviation users, not commuter airlines use. Glacier will always be the destination airport for scheduled airlines.
Small planes will continue to be the only users after the upgrade.
By Kokanee on 02-03-10
You know fight we got off on the wrong foot had my retirement not been Blackstoned, I would have started flight school this spring so it has to postponed for a while. My point was that I think I would like to have a nice airport to train on with all the bells and whistles. Nothing I said was to be misinterpreted as being against its existing location. I guess I was being a little nervous like when I am teeing off along a highway lol
By FightOrFlight on 02-03-10
Roger that Kok. City would be a great little airport for everything if it got improved as planned. Everything for small general aviation.
The problem with these goofy blogs is they perpetuate hearsay. You remember what they said when we were kids about reading it in the newspaper…. it must be true?
Har har, matie.
So endowed with the authority of reading it on the Beacon, folks just love to argue with authority as to what they just read.
Thats why I get so intense. Nothing is worse than shooting a gun at an mirage thinking your safe after discharging the weapon.
By FightOrFlight on 02-06-10
Let me go into “coulda, shoulda” mode.
Instead of developing the area around the airport, like the City did…. a great concept, in my view, would have been to make the property around the airport divided up in subdivision fashion so people could have hangers like garages with their homes in front, and aviation supporting businesses surrounding the runway and taxiways.
Scotties is a pilot hangout all ready. But what if it was walking distance from the fuel pumps and on the same field where passengers don’t need to cross a highway. Kind of like a drive in for airplanes? Spokane’s Felts Field has a great on field airport and people fly in there from Missoula, Kalispell, Helena etc just to have lunch in their small planes.
Developing the internal neighborhood so it was a lifestyle area for those who own, rent, fly, support or just like aircraft is a big attraction.
Instead, those developers on Airport Road took advantage of “airport stigma induced prices” of the past to buy property to put up nice businesses for sure; but they are mostly owned by non-fly-folks and attract the general public. Same for the residential subdivisions . Their initial cost to acquire were much less than the property north of US 2 and so we got lower value construction in there. Which is fine… even lower value homes house pilots. And if that part of town was developed for a huge range of fly friendly folks, an AIRPARK would be the result feature rather than the “post modern back country airstrip” we have now.
Just a thought.
By mitch on 02-06-10
fightorflight, thanks for the link. It sure answered all my questions, as did your posts. I can’t see what the big deal is, but there always have to be those few….............As I said, I am a close neighbor, have never been afraid, or complained of the noise. Do enjoy watching the skydivers, gliders and such.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.